Debate Now Who are the serious debaters on this forum?

[surada]

I yearn for a healthy, substantive debate. It would have to be the right subject and right time. A real debate requires some commitment.

There have been a few Canadian shills who have debated my argument about failures here and I've relied on memory when making the argument. Luckily, 9 times out of 10 I google the source. I've noticed there has been less resistance to such facts so they instead focus on my personal circumstance knowing I cannot provide names and details for obvious reasons.

From my perspective an important element of a debate is honesty. If one is honest with themselves they can be swayed, and, will speak the truth even if at times they cannot "prove it" per se (though its beyond an opinion).

How many threads have you created about your personal circumstances?

 

[TNHarley]

You're certainly not serious....You post indigestible text bricks with numerous different points on them, then demand that your voluminous load of prose be parsed out on a point-by-point basis.

Then, like the haughty headmaster wannabe that you are, you demand that everyone adhere to your rules.

Well, take you tl;dr bullshit and stuff it where the sun don't shine...Your effete snobbery deserves all the ridicule heaped upon it that it gets.

Damn bro..

 

[surada]

when will you comply with his request for a good debate? We don't need DNC talking points.

Sorry, I'm not debating on his history of being abused.

 

[miketx]

A number of persons on this forum do not understand how to frame an argument.

But, some of you do.

the non serious ones make wild claims, vacuous claims without substantiating them.

When asked to substantiate, I often get a snarky 'you do it'. No, the onus is always on the the ones making claims to substantiate their claims. You cannot ask others to do your work for you. That never has been the etiquette in any forum I've ever heard of and I've been on many going back to the 90s, the days of Usenet.

I will always substantiate my claim, if it exists. If it doesn't, I'll be happy to say 'it's just my opinion'. Opinions are okay, just make sure you make it clear that that is what they are. If you are making a claim of fact, then substantiate it to the best you can, and offer a path of reasoning for it, to the best that you can. See, to substantiate could just mean to supplement yuor claim, though proving it would be even better, but at least supplement it with something, or at the very minimum, a well reasoned path of logic and naming some well known examples, that would be okay.

But a wild claim, short sentence, 'Biden family are criminals' without evidence, that's not an argument. To say, 'it's in the news', that's not substantiation. A link would suffice. We could then debate the link, sure, but at least provide something, and the more, the merrier. It's called 'moving the debate forward'. Comments that do not move the debate forward are non arguments. Arguments and counter arguments move the debate forward. It's not complicated.

the non serious engage in ad hominems. The attack the source or the messenger and not the message. (yes, I've done this myself, but I would love to argue on a forum that doesn't allow it).

They who do not know how to debate do not engage in a real argument, they riddle their comments with rant words, weasel words, words of emotion and sentiment, engage in petty name calling, and wild claims without substance to them, and do not understand what a real argument is, and they do not understand the difference between an opinion and an argument, the difference between a non argument and a real argument.

For example:

Conservatives are morons. Liberals are idiots.

No, those are not arguments. Those are rants, they are sentiments, weasel words, ad homs, non arguments. Got it?

But, if I wrote: AOC's 'new deal' has issues, which are as follows (list them ) which is supported by (link to authoritative sources which supplement the argument [which, by the way, is not a violation of the 'appeals to authority' logical fallacy, because it's supplementation, not reliance upon] ).

That would be an argument. No snarky quips, no hate-AOC remarks, etc. Real arguments aren't supposed to be impressive by clever word use designed to get likes, they are supposed to be persuasive.

Who are the members of USMB who know how to debate?

Please tell me who you are and you will be the ones invited to future OPs by me on this forum. I don't care if you are right or left or something else. It's not about whether your are right or wrong, that is why we are here, to debate what is right and wrong, but some of you are disingenuous and are here only to get likes from your friends. Some of your I simply cannot take seriously. And, of course, those of you I can't take seriously will typically shoot that same claim back at me, which is, in fact, a cop out.

Who are the serious debaters? Let me know, please. PM me, if you prefer.

Please understand, I do not claim to be the god's gift to debate forums, it's not about how well we argue, I am probably even guilty of some of the sins I eschew, (but I strive, at least, not to, but, at times, it feels like I have to, with some of you) it's about how to at least adhere to a form that allows for constructive debate, and that is what I'm after.

And, another thing, we are anonymous here. All that matters is the argument, not who we are. Some are from foreign countries, it doesn't matter, all that matters is the text in the argument. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm from Texas, in case you are wondering.

Let me know, thank you.

Rumpole.

I know who the serious masterdebators are.

 

[miketx]

You're certainly not serious....

He's teething.

 

[luiza]

How many threads have you created about your personal circumstances?

The overall Champion --- Sniveller and Victim , as voted for in the May2023 edition of Psychiatry Today . Runner - Up , Rottenfuhrer Mortuary .

 

[rampart]

A number of persons on this forum do not understand how to frame an argument.

But, some of you do.

the non serious ones make wild claims, vacuous claims without substantiating them.

When asked to substantiate, I often get a snarky 'you do it'. No, the onus is always on the the ones making claims to substantiate their claims. You cannot ask others to do your work for you. That never has been the etiquette in any forum I've ever heard of and I've been on many going back to the 90s, the days of Usenet.

I will always substantiate my claim, if it exists. If it doesn't, I'll be happy to say 'it's just my opinion'. Opinions are okay, just make sure you make it clear that that is what they are. If you are making a claim of fact, then substantiate it to the best you can, and offer a path of reasoning for it, to the best that you can. See, to substantiate could just mean to supplement yuor claim, though proving it would be even better, but at least supplement it with something, or at the very minimum, a well reasoned path of logic and naming some well known examples, that would be okay.

But a wild claim, short sentence, 'Biden family are criminals' without evidence, that's not an argument. To say, 'it's in the news', that's not substantiation. A link would suffice. We could then debate the link, sure, but at least provide something, and the more, the merrier. It's called 'moving the debate forward'. Comments that do not move the debate forward are non arguments. Arguments and counter arguments move the debate forward. It's not complicated.

the non serious engage in ad hominems. The attack the source or the messenger and not the message. (yes, I've done this myself, but I would love to argue on a forum that doesn't allow it).

They who do not know how to debate do not engage in a real argument, they riddle their comments with rant words, weasel words, words of emotion and sentiment, engage in petty name calling, and wild claims without substance to them, and do not understand what a real argument is, and they do not understand the difference between an opinion and an argument, the difference between a non argument and a real argument.

For example:

Conservatives are morons. Liberals are idiots.

No, those are not arguments. Those are rants, they are sentiments, weasel words, ad homs, non arguments. Got it?

But, if I wrote: AOC's 'new deal' has issues, which are as follows (list them ) which is supported by (link to authoritative sources which supplement the argument [which, by the way, is not a violation of the 'appeals to authority' logical fallacy, because it's supplementation, not reliance upon] ).

That would be an argument. No snarky quips, no hate-AOC remarks, etc. Real arguments aren't supposed to be impressive by clever word use designed to get likes, they are supposed to be persuasive.

Who are the members of USMB who know how to debate?

Please tell me who you are and you will be the ones invited to future OPs by me on this forum. I don't care if you are right or left or something else. It's not about whether your are right or wrong, that is why we are here, to debate what is right and wrong, but some of you are disingenuous and are here only to get likes from your friends. Some of your I simply cannot take seriously. And, of course, those of you I can't take seriously will typically shoot that same claim back at me, which is, in fact, a cop out.

Who are the serious debaters? Let me know, please. PM me, if you prefer.

Please understand, I do not claim to be the god's gift to debate forums, it's not about how well we argue, I am probably even guilty of some of the sins I eschew, (but I strive, at least, not to, but, at times, it feels like I have to, with some of you) it's about how to at least adhere to a form that allows for constructive debate, and that is what I'm after.

And, another thing, we are anonymous here. All that matters is the argument, not who we are. Some are from foreign countries, it doesn't matter, all that matters is the text in the argument. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm from Texas, in case you are wondering.

Let me know, thank you.

Rumpole.

i do understand what you are saying, but i am only here to "pwn the trumpsuckers"

 

[rampart]

note to moderators: The 'clean debate zone' isn't clean on account of no imagination on what is required to keep it clean. But I understand that nobody really cares very much about keeping it clean, and providing a refuge for those few who desire clean debate. Can that be changed?

Would it be possible to even keep this thread clean for a start?

being new, i forgot that i was in "zone 1" for a while and got snarky.

i'll try to do better. and support this proposal.

 

[candycorn]

A number of persons on this forum do not understand how to frame an argument.

But, some of you do.

the non serious ones make wild claims, vacuous claims without substantiating them.

When asked to substantiate, I often get a snarky 'you do it'. No, the onus is always on the the ones making claims to substantiate their claims. You cannot ask others to do your work for you. That never has been the etiquette in any forum I've ever heard of and I've been on many going back to the 90s, the days of Usenet.

I will always substantiate my claim, if it exists. If it doesn't, I'll be happy to say 'it's just my opinion'. Opinions are okay, just make sure you make it clear that that is what they are. If you are making a claim of fact, then substantiate it to the best you can, and offer a path of reasoning for it, to the best that you can. See, to substantiate could just mean to supplement yuor claim, though proving it would be even better, but at least supplement it with something, or at the very minimum, a well reasoned path of logic and naming some well known examples, that would be okay.

But a wild claim, short sentence, 'Biden family are criminals' without evidence, that's not an argument. To say, 'it's in the news', that's not substantiation. A link would suffice. We could then debate the link, sure, but at least provide something, and the more, the merrier. It's called 'moving the debate forward'. Comments that do not move the debate forward are non arguments. Arguments and counter arguments move the debate forward. It's not complicated.

the non serious engage in ad hominems. The attack the source or the messenger and not the message. (yes, I've done this myself, but I would love to argue on a forum that doesn't allow it).

They who do not know how to debate do not engage in a real argument, they riddle their comments with rant words, weasel words, words of emotion and sentiment, engage in petty name calling, and wild claims without substance to them, and do not understand what a real argument is, and they do not understand the difference between an opinion and an argument, the difference between a non argument and a real argument.

For example:

Conservatives are morons. Liberals are idiots.

No, those are not arguments. Those are rants, they are sentiments, weasel words, ad homs, non arguments. Got it?

But, if I wrote: AOC's 'new deal' has issues, which are as follows (list them ) which is supported by (link to authoritative sources which supplement the argument [which, by the way, is not a violation of the 'appeals to authority' logical fallacy, because it's supplementation, not reliance upon] ).

That would be an argument. No snarky quips, no hate-AOC remarks, etc. Real arguments aren't supposed to be impressive by clever word use designed to get likes, they are supposed to be persuasive.

Who are the members of USMB who know how to debate?

Please tell me who you are and you will be the ones invited to future OPs by me on this forum. I don't care if you are right or left or something else. It's not about whether your are right or wrong, that is why we are here, to debate what is right and wrong, but some of you are disingenuous and are here only to get likes from your friends. Some of your I simply cannot take seriously. And, of course, those of you I can't take seriously will typically shoot that same claim back at me, which is, in fact, a cop out.

Who are the serious debaters? Let me know, please. PM me, if you prefer.

Please understand, I do not claim to be the god's gift to debate forums, it's not about how well we argue, I am probably even guilty of some of the sins I eschew, (but I strive, at least, not to, but, at times, it feels like I have to, with some of you) it's about how to at least adhere to a form that allows for constructive debate, and that is what I'm after.

And, another thing, we are anonymous here. All that matters is the argument, not who we are. Some are from foreign countries, it doesn't matter, all that matters is the text in the argument. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm from Texas, in case you are wondering.

Let me know, thank you.

Rumpole.

This format doesn't lend itself to a debate. I don't want to lay everything at the feet of the mods but the board mirrors the moderation over time.

For example...the polls. I asked the mods to make it to where you would have to vote in a poll before you can post a message on ta thread that has a poll. For example. If you were to start a poll today asking, "What is your favorite color" and listed Red, White, Blue, Orange and Yellow as the choices....if someone picked Blue, you'd get a post from Cletus saying "blue sucks". But if you forced Cletus to vote before he could comment...he'd have to pick a color himself.

Everyone on the thread would have a little skin in the game.

But they said no. It wouldn't stop the free-for all but it would allow someone who wants to have a conversation to at least get past the starting gun.

But, if any mods are listening...maybe have a 2-3 minute waiting period after a thread is started before someone comments. Perhaps they will actually read the posts they are responding to.

 

[Mac-7]

A number of persons on this forum do not understand how to frame an argument.

But, some of you do.

the non serious ones make wild claims, vacuous claims without substantiating them.

When asked to substantiate, I often get a snarky 'you do it'. No, the onus is always on the the ones making claims to substantiate their claims. You cannot ask others to do your work for you. That never has been the etiquette in any forum I've ever heard of and I've been on many going back to the 90s, the days of Usenet.

I will always substantiate my claim, if it exists. If it doesn't, I'll be happy to say 'it's just my opinion'. Opinions are okay, just make sure you make it clear that that is what they are. If you are making a claim of fact, then substantiate it to the best you can, and offer a path of reasoning for it, to the best that you can. See, to substantiate could just mean to supplement yuor claim, though proving it would be even better, but at least supplement it with something, or at the very minimum, a well reasoned path of logic and naming some well known examples, that would be okay.

But a wild claim, short sentence, 'Biden family are criminals' without evidence, that's not an argument. To say, 'it's in the news', that's not substantiation. A link would suffice. We could then debate the link, sure, but at least provide something, and the more, the merrier. It's called 'moving the debate forward'. Comments that do not move the debate forward are non arguments. Arguments and counter arguments move the debate forward. It's not complicated.

the non serious engage in ad hominems. The attack the source or the messenger and not the message. (yes, I've done this myself, but I would love to argue on a forum that doesn't allow it).

They who do not know how to debate do not engage in a real argument, they riddle their comments with rant words, weasel words, words of emotion and sentiment, engage in petty name calling, and wild claims without substance to them, and do not understand what a real argument is, and they do not understand the difference between an opinion and an argument, the difference between a non argument and a real argument.

For example:

Conservatives are morons. Liberals are idiots.

No, those are not arguments. Those are rants, they are sentiments, weasel words, ad homs, non arguments. Got it?

But, if I wrote: AOC's 'new deal' has issues, which are as follows (list them ) which is supported by (link to authoritative sources which supplement the argument [which, by the way, is not a violation of the 'appeals to authority' logical fallacy, because it's supplementation, not reliance upon] ).

That would be an argument. No snarky quips, no hate-AOC remarks, etc. Real arguments aren't supposed to be impressive by clever word use designed to get likes, they are supposed to be persuasive.

Who are the members of USMB who know how to debate?

Please tell me who you are and you will be the ones invited to future OPs by me on this forum. I don't care if you are right or left or something else. It's not about whether your are right or wrong, that is why we are here, to debate what is right and wrong, but some of you are disingenuous and are here only to get likes from your friends. Some of your I simply cannot take seriously. And, of course, those of you I can't take seriously will typically shoot that same claim back at me, which is, in fact, a cop out.

Who are the serious debaters? Let me know, please. PM me, if you prefer.

Please understand, I do not claim to be the god's gift to debate forums, it's not about how well we argue, I am probably even guilty of some of the sins I eschew, (but I strive, at least, not to, but, at times, it feels like I have to, with some of you) it's about how to at least adhere to a form that allows for constructive debate, and that is what I'm after.

And, another thing, we are anonymous here. All that matters is the argument, not who we are. Some are from foreign countries, it doesn't matter, all that matters is the text in the argument. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm from Texas, in case you are wondering.

Let me know, thank you.

Rumpole.

I am not interested in debating liberals like rumpole

He will prattle endlessly in excruciating detail that interests only him

And in the end nothing anyone says will ever change his mind about anything

 

[jc456]

Funny how our demofriends in here retaliate to insults rather than debating. It's classic!!! Most of you have no idea what debate is. what a shame.

 

[jc456]

I am not interested in debating liberals like rumpole

He will prattle endlessly in excruciating detail that interests only him

And in the end nothing anyone says will ever change his mind about anything

all they do is post insults and name calling rather than debate. You know, post actual data that fits the discussion rather than deflecting away from the OP. Almost every thread.

Oh and question the sources. Fact, they don't believe any resource that doesn't agree with them is believable. hahahahahaahahahaahahaha. Blind mice.

 

[Dadoalex]

.

If someone can't say it in fifty words, I don't need to know it.

It's called being succinct, and it's a valuable skill in life.

Definition of SUCCINCT

marked by compact precise expression without wasted words; being girded; close-fitting… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

.

It's called being shallow and reactionary.

A perfect MAGAT.

 

[jc456]

It's called being shallow and reactionary.

A perfect MAGAT.

It actually means you have no clue how to debate. Perfect insult/ name calling rather than debating.

 

[Synthaholic]

He will prattle endlessly in excruciating detail that interests only him

The devil is in the details. But you prefer the devil in the White House.

 

[Dadoalex]

Rumpole, I would be happy to debate some issues with you. Above you refer to authoratative sources being necessary, but you don't take into account that sources you deem to be authoritative, may not be credible sources to others.

...

Hint.
If your source looks like this

It's not a source.

 

[Dadoalex]

It actually means you have no clue how to debate. Perfect insult/ name calling rather than debating.

Did I call you a name?

What name?

Why is it an insult?

Luckily I used fewer than 50 words so as to not overload your minimind.

 

[Mac-7]

The devil is in the details. But you prefer the devil in the White House.

I dont prefer biden who is a protege of the Devil

 

[jc456]

Did I call you a name?

What name?

Why is it an insult?

Luckily I used fewer than 50 words so as to not overload your minimind.

perhaps explain what is meant by MAGAT?

 

[jc456]

Hint.
If your source looks like this

View attachment 813437

It's not a source.

no, why is it you have to put down the resource? Exceptional demonstration of how our demofriends deflect from the topic of a post.